- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:12:10 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > David Booth wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 14:36 -0500, David Booth wrote: >>> >>> I thought I would take this opportunity to provide some feedback on >>> Jonathan's draft: Requirements for Any Theory of "Information Resource". >>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir-axioms/20110225 >> >> . . . >> One more comment: >> >> 12. BTW, I like your idea of talking about "authorized" representations >> of an IR. That's what specs like 2616 assume (or specify), but given >> the amount of confusion that has been caused by scenarios where hardware >> or software malfunctions, or a web site is cracked or mis-configured, I > > intermediaries like caches? man in the middle attacks? badly configured ISPs > / network intermediaries which modify to add tracking code or ads? Yes. 2616 does specify what it means for a cache to be correct - it's the same as delivering only authorized responses. Nasty intermediaries are not implementing the protocol. I think there was a W3C publication last year about these things - I wanted to say that they should be advised to use 203 responses only, but didn't want to get involved... we just need to say "that's not HTTP".
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 02:12:42 UTC